Re: [Foundation-l] Steward elections: summary, week one
I would say the likelihood of him being the target of the Iranian govt is the same as him being kidnapped by some terror group and tortured for his access, which could happen in any country... On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Mido mido.archit...@gmail.com wrote: it doesn't make any sense that one could think of such a reason to oppose.if you trust his abilities and good reasoning, give him the extra tools to help as he's willing to do so. Also, he promised he won't do checkuser in Iranian projects which is the most critical power to misuse. this is a global project, you can't justify everything from only your perspective. Mido On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:20, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: geni wrote: 2009/2/9 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de: Surely is this a prejudice. Because there is no data that support such an assumption. In the eight years since the being of Wikipedia I don't know any such case happend on any Wikimedia project. Ting Prejudice? We know Iran's record on human rights and we know Iran's record of responding to speech they do not like (calling for the assassination the citizen of another country for example). The available evidence is that the Iranian government is a potential threat and unlike western governments don't have to worry about annoying laws and bad PR if they try anything. That's not the point we are talking about here. There are absolutely no data to rectify that the Iranian gouvenment would force a Wikimedia Steward to leak personal privacies of other Wikimedians. That's the point. Ting ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- - Arabic Wikipedia: http://ar.wikipedia.org/ Share your knowledge ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
On a totally off-topic note, Category:SuicideGirls looks to me like preview pictures to promote a commercial site. While I can see some use for some of those pictures (like piercing articles, etc), the collection as a whole would not fall ,at least IMHO, under Must be realistically useful for educational purpose. How is it any different than the tons of preview material available to promote the zillion porn sites save, of course, for the license? (probably this question should be somewhere on commons, but I am not a frequent commons user, I apologize for the off-topic). On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:53 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/1/30 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com: I'm certainly anti-censorship, so I don't advocate deleting all or any nude photographs. However, asking uploaders a few basic questions about their uploaded nudes (is the depicted model above the age of consent? is the depicted model aware that this photograph was taken? Is the depicted model aware that this photo is being uploaded here?) could help a lot of people avoid a lot of problems. Remember, it's not just the WMF who risks potential problems (and admittedly as an ISP the WMF's risk is probably very low), it's the people who are being depicted abusively that are going to have the biggest problems with these images. --Andrew Whitworth I would probably view it as an issue of image quality. We have had Template:Nopenis for some time which among other things focuses on quality. The providence of an image is a quality issue. Since we have no shortage of pics of women in various states of undress (see Category:Nude women and Category:Female genitalia) some of which have fairly clear providence (see Category:SuicideGirls for example) I see no reason why we should accept further images of questionable providence and quality. I've already created Template:Nobreasts and it would probably useful if someone put together Template:Novulva -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
language groups, or at least you should be ready to ask relevant outside experts. I have a feeling that current LangCom completely ignores historical and cultural background related to language problems which is quite often a key to make resonable decissions. -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
So, there are two conclusions: (1) I may imagine the process which had happened in relation to EA approval: no one made any serious objection and it passed. (2) There are two LangCom members introduced better in the linguistic issues, so the expertise level is raised and I think that it will be raised more in the future. I find it hard to believe that the tons and tons of discussion on EA's proposal page didnt generate any comments from the committee except a brief conversation between Gerard and one member. That may mean that they were disengaged at the time or have not been given enough time to consider before the actual approval occured. Either way it points out a fault in the policy because both of which are practically undetectable in the current process. It is strange that we require a minimum number of people to participate in most of our actions (like admin elections for example) but approving a new wiki will occur with only a request and one reply. -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
I was against the idea of creating a Masry Wikipedia (there is a looong thread where I brought it up here), *However* I am against deleting any Wikipedia that has been created and picked up an active community, regardless of how controversial it is. It is simply unfair to the people who have invested their time in the 300 something articles it has now. I think that is the correct thing to do despite the volume of complaints from people we are recieving on ar.wp and OTRS. That said, I am personally taking issue with LangCom. - Gerard has been the *only* person from LangCom that I have seen reply to any of the issues, his replies are selective, he refuses to answer whatever he doesnt think is relevant to his argument and is in general very aggressive, If the guys at LangCom chose him as the public face, I would say they were looking to pick fights rather than communicate decisions. - I Have asked several times about the delibration process and how the tons of arguments given on the controversial Masry topic were considered, I one time got an answer that was simply 'Can't disclose the arguments because of privacy issues of committee members' and the other was 'There was no arguments, I asked on the mailing list if I can create it and no one said no'. Both answers suggest an either disengaged committee or one that doesnt think transparency of the decision process is important, but rather, secretive decision is better. - After looking on the meta page for the committee, I asked if the committee has any mechanism for determining inactive members, if the process of decision is 'I sent an email and no one objected', that may mean approval, but it also may mean that people are not active. I got no answer for the question but Immediately after Masry controversy, two committee members resigned and one was removed for inactivity without any explanation given, is that an acknowledgement that the committee was malfunctioning? Why wasnt there some kind of public explaination. -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
Hi Jesse, Thank you for the links, the last time I asked to look at those I was told the whole mailing list was private and not open to the public, I think opening this up is a huge step forward towards transparency. I appreciate also your clarification about Gerard, I would have appreciated him making that clear in the discussions that happened. On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathosch...@gmail.com wrote: Muhammad Alsebaey shipmas...@gmail.com wrote: - Gerard has been the *only* person from LangCom that I have seen reply to any of the issues, his replies are selective, he refuses to answer whatever he doesnt think is relevant to his argument and is in general very aggressive, If the guys at LangCom chose him as the public face, I would say they were looking to pick fights rather than communicate decisions. Gerard is definitely not a subcommittee spokesperson. Every word he and I speak are as individual members, speaking our own opinions. Discussion with the subcommittee should be done on the mailing list or on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee, where I for example frequently respond. Muhammad Alsebaey shipmas...@gmail.com wrote: - After looking on the meta page for the committee, I asked if the committee has any mechanism for determining inactive members, if the process of decision is 'I sent an email and no one objected', that may mean approval, but it also may mean that people are not active. I got no answer for the question but Immediately after Masry controversy, two committee members resigned and one was removed for inactivity without any explanation given, is that an acknowledgement that the committee was malfunctioning? Why wasnt there some kind of public explaination. The members resigned or were removed at my proposal, one of several changes to ensure the problem you mentioned did not occur again. There are no language subcommittee announcements, but this and other decisions can be understood by reading the public archives: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-11#Remove_inactive_members . -- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
I personally do not care about the nature of Gerard's character, he may be a very nice person if I meet him in person ( next Wikimania maybe). I am just refering to the way he conducted himself during the discussions on languages. And yes, I strongly believe this was aggressive. I won't get into such details but you can read the other thread. On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.comwrote: I don´t think this is very fair. You can call Gerard a lot, but not really agressive... He can be very enthusiast, committed, and very sure he is right, and trying to persuade others, but agressive? Anyway, I don't think a mailinglist (especially not this one) is a good place to discuss *people* rather then subjects. Have you tried to discuss your problems directly with Gerard, Muhammad and David? Sometimes that helps. Best regards, Lodewijk 2009/1/10 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com 2009/1/10 Muhammad Alsebaey shipmas...@gmail.com: - Gerard has been the *only* person from LangCom that I have seen reply to any of the issues, his replies are selective, he refuses to answer whatever he doesnt think is relevant to his argument and is in general very aggressive, If the guys at LangCom chose him as the public face, I would say they were looking to pick fights rather than communicate decisions. Seconded, particularly the aggression. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
So Based on the the Archives Jesse and Casey graciously provided the link to, the only discussion about Masry I found was: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-07#Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic When I raised the issue of Masry on this mailing list, raising what I thought was valid concerns, and at the same times others were raising such concerns on meta, Gerard's response was, and I quote: I have indicated that the language committee was unanimous in deciding that the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia request was eligible. As indicated earlier, all members of the language committee were explicitly asked to consider the issue that you raise. The consequence of this is that in my opinion you refuse people the freedom to work on a project in their language, languages that are eligible under the language policy of the WMF. Per above link, I see a discussion only between two members (Gerard and Jon). I am pretty confused how did that constitute a 'unanimous decision'. Wouldn't that be a gross mis-characterization? Wouldn't refusal to point me to archived discussion *then* mis-characterizing what really happened on the list be grounds for some kind of audit? Forgive me If I am wrong, but that is the only information I have to work on, if I am wrong, I apologize to Gerard. Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
Which creates the situation we are in, according to you, all members of the language committee were explicitly asked to consider the issues that I and others raised, but since only one out of the 10+ people responded, therefore they must have all considered all the issues and have no comment, and the decision is unanimous. I am not going to debate with you how this doesnt sound very logical, It is sufficient to say you are now finding out that there were at least 1 objecting and 4 inactive members after you declared the decision 'unanimous'. On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, As I have been saying before, the language committee works on the basis that if only one person objects, something does not move forward. Many subjects are raised on our mailing list where people are notified that something is going to be done and when nobody objects within a certain time frame, the proposal is moved forward. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/11 Muhammad Alsebaey shipmas...@gmail.com So Based on the the Archives Jesse and Casey graciously provided the link to, the only discussion about Masry I found was: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-07#Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic When I raised the issue of Masry on this mailing list, raising what I thought was valid concerns, and at the same times others were raising such concerns on meta, Gerard's response was, and I quote: I have indicated that the language committee was unanimous in deciding that the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia request was eligible. As indicated earlier, all members of the language committee were explicitly asked to consider the issue that you raise. The consequence of this is that in my opinion you refuse people the freedom to work on a project in their language, languages that are eligible under the language policy of the WMF. Per above link, I see a discussion only between two members (Gerard and Jon). I am pretty confused how did that constitute a 'unanimous decision'. Wouldn't that be a gross mis-characterization? Wouldn't refusal to point me to archived discussion *then* mis-characterizing what really happened on the list be grounds for some kind of audit? Forgive me If I am wrong, but that is the only information I have to work on, if I am wrong, I apologize to Gerard. Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
Do you have a set time limit for people to respond in? a week? a month? and what about the 4 inactive persons, how do you consider them inactive? what if you had 7 inactive members out of 10 at a time and didnt know it, would it still be a 'unanimous' decision? On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, You are wrong. If one person had objected at the time, the proposal would not have been made eligible. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/11 Muhammad Alsebaey shipmas...@gmail.com Which creates the situation we are in, according to you, all members of the language committee were explicitly asked to consider the issues that I and others raised, but since only one out of the 10+ people responded, therefore they must have all considered all the issues and have no comment, and the decision is unanimous. I am not going to debate with you how this doesnt sound very logical, It is sufficient to say you are now finding out that there were at least 1 objecting and 4 inactive members after you declared the decision 'unanimous'. On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, As I have been saying before, the language committee works on the basis that if only one person objects, something does not move forward. Many subjects are raised on our mailing list where people are notified that something is going to be done and when nobody objects within a certain time frame, the proposal is moved forward. Thanks, GerardM 2009/1/11 Muhammad Alsebaey shipmas...@gmail.com So Based on the the Archives Jesse and Casey graciously provided the link to, the only discussion about Masry I found was: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-07#Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic When I raised the issue of Masry on this mailing list, raising what I thought was valid concerns, and at the same times others were raising such concerns on meta, Gerard's response was, and I quote: I have indicated that the language committee was unanimous in deciding that the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia request was eligible. As indicated earlier, all members of the language committee were explicitly asked to consider the issue that you raise. The consequence of this is that in my opinion you refuse people the freedom to work on a project in their language, languages that are eligible under the language policy of the WMF. Per above link, I see a discussion only between two members (Gerard and Jon). I am pretty confused how did that constitute a 'unanimous decision'. Wouldn't that be a gross mis-characterization? Wouldn't refusal to point me to archived discussion *then* mis-characterizing what really happened on the list be grounds for some kind of audit? Forgive me If I am wrong, but that is the only information I have to work on, if I am wrong, I apologize to Gerard. Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
